It contains an integrated SMTP engine in order to send emails. A direct connection with the destination server will be established. The characteristics are described in the following:

From: The sender address is spoofed.

To: – Email addresses found in specific files on the system.

Subject: One of the following: • Call to your lawer immidiately • Lawsuit against you • Pay your debts before we come to you • We wait your response.

Body: – Contains HTML code. The body of the email is one of the following:

• LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU (ATTACHMENT HAS MORE INFORMATION)1550 Peachtree StreetAtlanta, GA 30309

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed is a copy of the lawsuit that I filed against you in (my county) court on March 22, 2001. Currently the Pretrail Conference is scheduled for April 10th, 2001 at 9:30 A.M. in courtroom 33. The case number is (insert case).

The reason the lawsuit was filed was due to a completely inadequate response from your company. When someone is the victim of identity theft, it is simply a nightmare trying to get false information removed from a credit file. I have contacted all of the false creditors listed on my credit file. I have challenged all of the false listings on my credit file. Nothing ever happens to fix the situation.

Over 90 days ago I wrote each the creditors in question and demanded proof that I am their customer. I asked for proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature. So far none of them has been able to provide such proof to me. I have sent follow-up letters to each of them and there is still no proof. I have attempted phone contact, but I simply get transferred around and nothing ever gets accomplished.

I have fully investigated my rights in this matter. Under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. I have copies of the certified letters and dates prepared to bring to court on April 10th. Also, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, these disputed items may not appear on my credit report if they cannot be supported by any evidence.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if they cannot verify the debt within 30 days, then it must be removed. Your letters to me claim to have ‘verified’ the debt, but this is in fact not true under law. Simply contacting the alleged creditor and asking them to match up numbers in their database is no sufficient verification for identity theft. Of course the information matches up. Someone clearly used my information without my authorization.

Now I am suing Equifax for being such a pain in the posterior to me. I have provided more than sufficient evidence to get these false accounts removed.

You may contact me before April 10th at (my phone number) or at my address listed at the top of this letter. This matter can be settled simply by your agreement to remove the false information from my credit file.

I require a response, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner. If I get another pointless letter from you saying that it has already been ‘verified’ then there will be no more opportunity for negotiation. This will proceed in court until I have successfully proven to a judge that this false information must be removed from my credit file. I will also be aggressively pursuing the full judgment that I can get against Equifax for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Defamation.

• LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU (CLICK TO ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION)To Whom It May Concern:

On 02, 2006, you sent a facsimile (the Fax) to my facsimile machine that is connected to my telephone number 678-5713-1571. A copy of your Fax is ENCLOSED IN ATTACHMEN. The Fax is an advertisement for the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services. You sent your Fax to me without my prior express invitation or permission. You and I have never had an established business relationship.

A federal law enacted in 1991 called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act) provides that -It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States . . . to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). The federal law also provides that - A person or entity may . . . bring in an appropriate court . . . an action . . . to receive $500 in damages for each such violation . . . . If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations . . . ., the court may triple the damage award. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) (emphasis added).

By sending the Fax to me, you violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) and are now liable to pay damages to me of not less than $500 under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). I believe you willfully or knowingly violated the Act, which would make you liable to pay me $1,500. I am willing to waive my right to seek damages of $1,500 and will agree not to file a 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) lawsuit against you if you pay me $500 on or before April , 2006.

If you do not pay me $500 by the deadline for payment, I intend to sue you in Nyew-York, NY, for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. If you force me to sue you, I will not settle for less than $1,000 and will seek triple damages of $1,500. I also demand that you immediately cease and desist from sending any facsimiles to me in the future.

For information about the Act, see the article entitled -Junk Fax Law - the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,- which can be viewed on the internet at http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/junkfaxlaw.htm. This article contains links to the complete statute, the federal regulations interpreting the Act, several junk fax articles and articles on a recent class action lawsuit called Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., (Richmond County, Georgia, Superior Court case number 95-RCCV-616). Hooters hired a fax service that sent six unsolicited junk faxes to each of 1,321 fax numbers. In April of 2001, the court ordered Hooters to pay treble damages of $11,889,000.

I am sending you a copy of this letter by regular first class mail in case you refuse to accept the certified mail, return receipt requested version of this letter.

• LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU (CLICK TO ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION)

Tucker's Fix-It-Quick Garage9938 Main St.Chicago, IL 61390

Dear Mr. Tucker,

On Feb 21, 2006, I took my car to your garage for servicing. Shortly after picking it up the next day, the engine caught fire because of your failure to properly tighten the fuel line to the fuel injector. Fortunately, I was able to douse the fire without injury to myself.

As a direct result of the fire, I paid the ABC garage $681 for necessary repair work. I enclose a copy of their invoice.

In addition, as a direct result of the fire, I was without the use of my car for three days and had to rent a car to get to work. I enclose a copy of an invoice for the rental cost of $145.

In a recent phone conversation, you claimed that the fire wasn't the result of your negligence and would have happened anyway. You also claimed that, even if it was your fault, I should have brought my car back to your garage so you could have fixed it at a lower cost.

As to the first issue, Peter Klein of the ABC Garage is prepared to testify in court that the fire occurred because the fuel line was not properly connected to the fuel injector.

Second, I had no obligation to return the car to you for further repair. I had the damage you caused repaired at a commercially reasonable price and am prepared to prove this with several higher estimates by other garages.

Please send me a check or money order for $826 on or before July 15. If I don't receive payment by that date, I'll promptly file this case in small claims court.

You may reach me during the day at 555-2857 or in the evenings until 10 p.m. at 555-8967.